isaiah

WE CONTINUE OUR ELECTION COVERAGE WITH A CONDENSED ENCORE PRESENTATION OF OUR SHOWS ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS FACING MINNESOTA VOTERS NOVEMBER 6 – THE SO-CALLED VOTER ID AMENDMENT AND OUR SHOW'S TAKE ON THE CATHOLIC RESPONSE TO THE SO-CALLED MARRIAGE AMENDMENT– WHICH WOULD MEMORIALIZE IN CEMENT 1) A REQUIREMENT THAT ALL VOTERS PRESENT A GOVERNMENT ISSUED PICTURE IDENTIFICATION CARD IN ORDER TO CAST A BALLOT, AND TO PROHIBIT GAY MARRIAGE BY DEFINING THAT INSTITUTION AS OCCURRING ONLY BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

“…shifting the focus of our marriage laws away from the interests of children and society as a whole, and onto the desires of the adults involved in a same-sex relationship will result in the most profound long-term consequences. Such a paradigm shift says to children that mothers and fathers don’t matter (especially fathers) – any two “parents” will do. It proclaims the false notion that a man can be a mother and a woman can be a father – that men and women are exactly the same in rearing children.

“We will have an inevitable increase in children born out of wedlock, an increase in fatherlessness, a resulting increase if female and child poverty, and a higher incidence of all the documented social ills associated with children being raised in a home without their married biological parents.

“Ultimately, we as a society all suffer when we fail to nourish a true, thriving marriage culture founded on the truth experienced by virtually every civilization in every nation since the dawn of time – marriage is the union of one man and one woman.” — Archbishop John Nienstedt

Welcome to the early argument(s) issued by the St. Paul Chancery and the pen of the prelate of this archdiocese, Archbishop John Nienstedt, repeated in many Catholic pulpits around the state that all Catholics support the proposed state constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between one man and one woman. The ballot measure, passed and placed before the electorate by the Minnesota Legislature this past session will be voted on in November (the Governor has no say in the passage or placement of constitutional amendments).

The formal Church hierarchy has been pushing for amendments out of fear that statutes already on the books that already define marriage as such could be overturned either by a court or a new Legislature friendlier to gay marriage, thus abhorrent. Yet another, longer letter, went out over Nienstedt’s hand August 30, pushing ever harder on parishioners and believers to vote YES.

But, as Beth Hawkins has reportedin MinnPost.com, not every parish under that umbrella has followed suit, to the great consternation and admonition of John Nienstedt. Priests and/or pastors daring to buck the boss have been taken to the woodshed. But the critics continue to flourish within the flock. Well over 100 former priests, some once-powerful clerics, and their disenchanted brethren have formed a group of Resigned Priests for Marriage Equality. And a practicing monk from St. John’s Abbey (outside Nienstedt’s jurisdiction) in Collegeville, Father Bob Pierson, gave an impassioned speech supporting Catholics’ right to vote NO.

Catholic churches are not the only communities of faith backing the Marriage Amendment, but the vigor with which the Church has funded (to the tune of $1 million-plus) and lobbied for the measure over the last several years is one of the most blatantly political incursions we’ve ever witnessed at this level.

This Church’s views are most important to many because its very existence is rooted in the core belief that Jesus Christ himself was its founder (“Thou art Peter, and, upon this rock, I will build my Church.”) Thus is it true that Catholics of every stripe accept that as doctrine. Where many part company with Church hierarchy is in the relationships the Church has defined as dogma: only single, celibate men may be ordained, making women subordinate; marriage is the only state in which sexual intercourse is allowed because procreation is only reason humans were endowed with the sexual function; nothing must interfere with the natural conception of life in the sex act; abortion is murder; and homosexuality is disordered.

That is not to say that gays and lesbians should be driven from the Church. No, they deserve our compassion and prayers, but they must not engage in sexual activity for all those reasons stated above. And they surely must never be allowed to marry. Marriage must never be defined as anything other than as between one man and one woman.

Courtesy Steve Sack and Star Tribune

Such dogma and its resistors within the Church, including former priests, existing priests and monks (some of them openly gay), and a significant number of current practitioners of the Catholic faith are pushing back on this archbishop and what appears to be an anti-gay crusade of puzzling dimensions – ask the parishioners at St. Joan of Arc and St. Stephens and others – who argue that none of this homophobia is parallel with Christ’s teachings or embedded in scripture.

This is why TTT’s ANDY DRISCOLL and MICHELLE ALIMORADI are talking about this particular aspect of the Marriage Amendment argument this week and featuring spokespeople from a few walks of Catholic life to explain why they are voting NO on this ballot issue November 6th.

GUESTS:

ROSE MCMURRAY – Mother of a gay son and parishioner at Church of the Risen Savior, Burnsville

ED FLAHAVAN – A Leader of Former Priests Against Marriage Amendment; Archdiocesan priest for 48 years; Head of the Archdiocese’s social-justice agency, the Urban Affairs Commission (UAC); and a member of former Gov. Rudy Perpich’s Task Force on Lesbian and Gay Minnesotans. Married for seven years.

Pro-amendment forces, primarily Republicans who pushed this onto this year’s November election ballot – and even many Democrats who see little harm in such a requirement – claim that such a mandate will prevent voter fraud in a state with no substantial record of it.

Anti-voter ID amendmentforces are as adamant about defeating this measure as many have been about the marriage amendment, that it is a costly and disenfranchising move, not just for the usual suspects, but for the fully one-third of Minnesotans who must use Election-Day Registration when voting.

Ultimately, this is about who should get to decide who runs this country, this state, these cities and so on. This is about power – and how you secure it for the future - - like gerrymandering in redistricting – preventing the other party from gaining any kind of foothold or holding a majority or running the government. Voting is just another frontier, is it not, in the acquisition and retention of power and control. The more citizens you can keep from voting, especially those likely to vote for the other guy, you’ll do it, right?

Recent polls have both constitutional amendment evenly split.

As information trickles into the mainstream media about the effects Voter ID would have on the entire election system in Minnesota – as well as every other state where its appeared – powerful political forces are stepping up and denouncing it as much as those who proposed it in the first.

TTT's ANDY DRISCOLL and MICHELLE ALIMORADI try to sort out the pros and cons of passing or rejecting this proposed amendment to the State Constitution.

UPCOMING SHOW – PART ONE

Tune in this coming Monday from 9:00 am to 10:00 am on KFAI, (90.3 FM in Minneapolis, and 106.7 FM in St. Paul) to catch our upcoming program:

We continue our election coverage with A CONDENSED ENCORE PRESENTATION of our shows on the Constitutional amendments facing Minnesota voters November 6 – the so-called Voter ID amendment and our show's take on the CATHOLIC RESPONSE to the so-called MARRIAGE AMENDMENT– which would memorialize in cement 1) a requirement that all voters present a government issued picture identification card in order to cast a ballot, and to prohibit gay marriage by defining that institution as occurring only between one man and one woman.

Pro-amendment forces, primarily Republicans who pushed this onto this year’s November election ballot – and even many Democrats who see little harm in such a requirement – claim that such a mandate will prevent voter fraud in a state with no substantial record of it.

Anti-voter ID amendmentforces are as adamant about defeating this measure as many have been about the marriage amendment, that it is a costly and disenfranchising move, not just for the usual suspects, but for the fully one-third of Minnesotans who must use Election-Day Registration when voting.

Ultimately, this is about who should get to decide who runs this country, this state, these cities and so on. This is about power – and how you secure it for the future - - like gerrymandering in redistricting – preventing the other party from gaining any kind of foothold or holding a majority or running the government. Voting is just another frontier, is it not, in the acquisition and retention of power and control. The more citizens you can keep from voting, especially those likely to vote for the other guy, you’ll do it, right?

A recent poll (KSTP) indicates both constitutional amendments are likely to pass. Another poll has it closer.

As information trickles into the mainstream media about the effects Voter ID would have on the entire election system in Minnesota – as well as every other state where its appeared – powerful political forces are stepping up and denouncing it as much as those who proposed it in the first.

TTT's ANDY DRISCOLL and MICHELLE ALIMORADI try to sort out the pros and cons of passing or rejecting this proposed amendment to the State Constitution.

PART TWO

“…shifting the focus of our marriage laws away from the interests of children and society as a whole, and onto the desires of the adults involved in a same-sex relationship will result in the most profound long-term consequences. Such a paradigm shift says to children that mothers and fathers don’t matter (especially fathers) – any two “parents” will do. It proclaims the false notion that a man can be a mother and a woman can be a father – that men and women are exactly the same in rearing children.

“We will have an inevitable increase in children born out of wedlock, an increase in fatherlessness, a resulting increase if female and child poverty, and a higher incidence of all the documented social ills associated with children being raised in a home without their married biological parents.

“Ultimately, we as a society all suffer when we fail to nourish a true, thriving marriage culture founded on the truth experienced by virtually every civilization in every nation since the dawn of time – marriage is the union of one man and one woman.” — Archbishop John Nienstedt

Welcome to the early argument(s) issued by the St. Paul Chancery and the pen of the prelate of this archdiocese, Archbishop John Nienstedt, repeated in many Catholic pulpits around the state that all Catholics support the proposed state constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between one man and one woman. The ballot measure, passed and placed before the electorate by the Minnesota Legislature this past session will be voted on in November (the Governor has no say in the passage or placement of constitutional amendments).

The formal Church hierarchy has been pushing for amendments out of fear that statutes already on the books that already define marriage as such could be overturned either by a court or a new Legislature friendlier to gay marriage, thus abhorrent. Yet another, longer letter, went out over Nienstedt’s hand August 30, pushing ever harder on parishioners and believers to vote YES.

But, as Beth Hawkins has reportedin MinnPost.com, not every parish under that umbrella has followed suit, to the great consternation and admonition of John Nienstedt. Priests and/or pastors daring to buck the boss have been taken to the woodshed. But the critics continue to flourish within the flock. Well over 100 former priests, some once-powerful clerics, and their disenchanted brethren have formed a group of Resigned Priests for Marriage Equality. And a practicing monk from St. John’s Abbey (outside Nienstedt’s jurisdiction) in Collegeville, Father Bob Pierson, gave an impassioned speech supporting Catholics’ right to vote NO.

Catholic churches are not the only communities of faith backing the Marriage Amendment, but the vigor with which the Church has funded (to the tune of $1 million-plus) and lobbied for the measure over the last several years is one of the most blatantly political incursions we’ve ever witnessed at this level.

This Church’s views are most important to many because its very existence is rooted in the core belief that Jesus Christ himself was its founder (“Thou art Peter, and, upon this rock, I will build my Church.”) Thus is it true that Catholics of every stripe accept that as doctrine. Where many part company with Church hierarchy is in the relationships the Church has defined as dogma: only single, celibate men may be ordained, making women subordinate; marriage is the only state in which sexual intercourse is allowed because procreation is only reason humans were endowed with the sexual function; nothing must interfere with the natural conception of life in the sex act; abortion is murder; and homosexuality is disordered.

That is not to say that gays and lesbians should be driven from the Church. No, they deserve our compassion and prayers, but they must not engage in sexual activity for all those reasons stated above. And they surely must never be allowed to marry. Marriage must never be defined as anything other than as between one man and one woman.

Courtesy Steve Sack and Star Tribune

Such dogma and its resistors within the Church, including former priests, existing priests and monks (some of them openly gay), and a significant number of current practitioners of the Catholic faith are pushing back on this archbishop and what appears to be an anti-gay crusade of puzzling dimensions – ask the parishioners at St. Joan of Arc and St. Stephens and others – who argue that none of this homophobia is parallel with Christ’s teachings or embedded in scripture.

This is why TTT’s ANDY DRISCOLL and MICHELLE ALIMORADI are talking about this particular aspect of the Marriage Amendment argument this week and featuring spokespeople from a few walks of Catholic life to explain why they are voting NO on this ballot issue November 6th.

GUESTS:

ROSE MCMURRAY – Mother of a gay son and parishioner at Church of the Risen Savior, Burnsville

ED FLAHAVAN – A Leader of Former Priests Against Marriage Amendment; Archdiocesan priest for 48 years; Head of the Archdiocese’s social-justice agency, the Urban Affairs Commission (UAC); and a member of former Gov. Rudy Perpich’s Task Force on Lesbian and Gay Minnesotans. Married for seven years.

Become a Friend of TruthToTell! We want to THANK YOU for coming to and/or donating to TTT’s 5thAnniversary Bash last Thursday, Sept. 20th. Your help will keep our weekly shows exploring and examining the issues that matter most – and expand our reach into other corners of the community and Greater Minnesota! If you were unable to join us or donate thus far, you can do so now: Always time to become a part of our family HERE! Welcome aboard!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Collaborative efforts between and among advocacy and service groups seeking social justice and eliminating disparities – race, class and otherwise – are nothing new, but Heartland Democracy, Twin Cities RISE! and 180 Degrees have figured out how to take the time necessary to touch many age groups finding it tough to succeed in today’s world.

From Heartland’s website:

Empowering U is Heartland’s deep civic empowerment program. Through a series of guided discussions, participants discover the tangible benefits of involvement in community, politics, and self-governance. They develop the motivation and tools to become active, informed members of their communities. Heartland Democracy works with partner groups serving our neighbors with little or no experience of participation in community, government, or politics. Hence, Twin Cities Rise!, which provides employment training to adults who have faced challenges in gaining and holding jobs, is a natural host. TCR! understands that when their participants learn the methods for networking to achieve a community or political goal, that same network pays off in job networking, the identification of resources, financial stability, and wealth. In other words, when you can till the roots of democracy, you can cultivate the roots of the economy as well. Similarly, HD is working with juvenile ex-offenders under the auspices of 180 Degrees. Both cohorts are in St. Paul.

Policy analysis and progressive advocacy group Heartland Democracy is able to bring Empowering U to our St. Paul area neighbors at Twin Cities Rise!,180 Degrees, and, later this year, Unity Center for Youth Leadership's high school internship program with the generous support of the F. R. Bigelow Foundation and the St. Paul Foundation. In this way, Heartland and cohorts are helping Minnesotans realize their own self-interest in the full range of citizenship.

Citizenship is really what TruthToTell has been about, lo, these past five years-plus. Civic engagement is the source of survival for our entire democracy.

TTT’s ANDY DRISCOLL and MICHELLE ALIMORADI help you listen to Empowering U stories of the young men and women this program is meant to assist in gaining a grasp of public life and citizenship coming out of more troubled pasts.

MOST RECENT SHOW

Become a Friend of TruthToTell and let us put you on RADIO! Come to TTT’s 5thAnniversary Bash this Thursday,Sept. 20th., and help keep our weekly shows exploring and examining the issues that matter most – and expand our reach into other corners of the community and Greater Minnesota! We'll record your voice and ideas on mic! DETAILS HERE! PLEASE JOIN US!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We continue our election coverage with the second of the Constitutional amendments facing Minnesota voters in November – the so-called Voter ID amendment – which would memorialize in cement a requirement that all voters present a government issued picture identification card in order to cast a ballot.

Pro-amendment forces, primarily Republicans who pushed this onto this year’s November election ballot – and even many Democrats who see little harm in such a requirement – claim that such a mandate will prevent voter fraud in a state with no substantial record of it.

Anti-voter ID amendmentforces are as adamant about defeating this measure as many have been about the marriage amendment, that it is a costly and disenfranchising move, not just for the usual suspects, but for the fully one-third of Minnesotans who must use Election-Day Registration when voting.

Ultimately, this is about who should get to decide who runs this country, this state, these cities and so on. This is about power – and how you secure it for the future - - like gerrymandering in redistricting – preventing the other party from gaining any kind of foothold or holding a majority or running the government. Voting is just another frontier, is it not, in the acquisition and retention of power and control. The more citizens you can keep from voting, especially those likely to vote for the other guy, you’ll do it, right?

A recent poll (KSTP) indicates both constitutional amendments are likely to pass. Another poll has it closer.

As information trickles into the mainstream media about the effects Voter ID would have on the entire election system in Minnesota – as well as every other state where its appeared – powerful political forces are stepping up and denouncing it as much as those who proposed it in the first.

TTT's ANDY DRISCOLL and MICHELLE ALIMORADI try to sort out the pros and cons of passing or rejecting this proposed amendment to the State Constitution.

SAVE THE DATE: Sept. 20th. Become a Friend of TruthToTell and let us put you on RADIO! Come to TTT’s 5thAnniversary Bash and help keep our weekly shows exploring and examining the issue that matter most – and expand our reach into other corners of the community and Greater Minnesota! And we'll record your voice and ideas on mic! DETAILS HERE! PLEASE JOIN US!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We continue our election coverage with the second of the Constitutional amendments facing Minnesota voters in November – the so-called Voter ID amendment – which would memorialize in cement a requirement that all voters present a government issued picture identification card in order to cast a ballot.

Pro-amendment forces, primarily Republicans who pushed this onto this year’s November election ballot – and even many Democrats who see little harm in such a requirement – claim that such a mandate will prevent voter fraud in a state with no substantial record of it.

Anti-voter ID amendmentforces are as adamant about defeating this measure as many have been about the marriage amendment, that it is a costly and disenfranchising move, not just for the usual suspects, but for the fully one-third of Minnesotans who must use Election-Day Registration when voting.

Ultimately, this is about who should get to decide who runs this country, this state, these cities and so on. This is about power – and how you secure it for the future - - like gerrymandering in redistricting – preventing the other party from gaining any kind of foothold or holding a majority or running the government. Voting is just another frontier, is it not, in the acquisition and retention of power and control. The more citizens you can keep from voting, especially those likely to vote for the other guy, you’ll do it, right?

A recent poll (KSTP) indicates both constitutional amendments are likely to pass. Another poll has it closer.

As information trickles into the mainstream media about the effects Voter ID would have on the entire election system in Minnesota – as well as every other state where its appeared – powerful political forces are stepping up and denouncing it as much as those who proposed it in the first.

TTT's ANDY DRISCOLL and MICHELLE ALIMORADI try to sort out the pros and cons of passing or rejecting this proposed amendment to the State Constitution.

MOST RECENT SHOW

SAVE THE DATE: Sept. 20th. Become a Friend of TruthToTell and let us put you on RADIO! Come to TTT’s 5thAnniversary Bash and help keep our weekly shows exploring and examining the issue that matter most – and expand our reach into other corners of the community and Greater Minnesota! And we'll record your voice and ideas on mic! DETAILS HERE! PLEASE JOIN US!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“…shifting the focus of our marriage laws away from the interests of children and society as a whole, and onto the desires of the adults involved in a same-sex relationship will result in the most profound long-term consequences. Such a paradigm shift says to children that mothers and fathers don’t matter (especially fathers) – any two “parents” will do. It proclaims the false notion that a man can be a mother and a woman can be a father – that men and women are exactly the same in rearing children.

“We will have an inevitable increase in children born out of wedlock, an increase in fatherlessness, a resulting increase if female and child poverty, and a higher incidence of all the documented social ills associated with children being raised in a home without their married biological parents.

“Ultimately, we as a society all suffer when we fail to nourish a true, thriving marriage culture founded on the truth experienced by virtually every civilization in every nation since the dawn of time – marriage is the union of one man and one woman.” — Archbishop John Nienstedt

Welcome to the early argument(s) issued by the St. Paul Chancery and the pen of the prelate of this archdiocese, Archbishop John Nienstedt, repeated in many Catholic pulpits around the state that all Catholics support the proposed state constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between one man and one woman. The ballot measure, passed and placed before the electorate by the Minnesota Legislature this past session will be voted on in November (the Governor has no say in the passage or placement of constitutional amendments).

The formal Church hierarchy has been pushing for amendments out of fear that statutes already on the books that already define marriage as such could be overturned either by a court or a new Legislature friendlier to gay marriage, thus abhorrent. Yet another, longer letter, went out over Nienstedt’s hand August 30, pushing ever harder on parishioners and believers to vote YES.

But, as Beth Hawkins has reportedin MinnPost.com, not every parish under that umbrella has followed suit, to the great consternation and admonition of John Nienstedt. Priests and/or pastors daring to buck the boss have been taken to the woodshed. But the critics continue to flourish within the flock. Well over 100 former priests, some once-powerful clerics, and their disenchanted brethren have formed a group of Resigned Priests for Marriage Equality. And a practicing monk from St. John’s Abbey (outside Nienstedt’s jurisdiction) in Collegeville, Father Bob Pierson, gave an impassioned speech supporting Catholics’ right to vote NO.

Catholic churches are not the only communities of faith backing the Marriage Amendment, but the vigor with which the Church has funded (to the tune of $1 million-plus) and lobbied for the measure over the last several years is one of the most blatantly political incursions we’ve ever witnessed at this level.

This Church’s views are most important to many because its very existence is rooted in the core belief that Jesus Christ himself was its founder (“Thou art Peter, and, upon this rock, I will build my Church.”) Thus is it true that Catholics of every stripe accept that as doctrine. Where many part company with Church hierarchy is in the relationships the Church has defined as dogma: only single, celibate men may be ordained, making women subordinate; marriage is the only state in which sexual intercourse is allowed because procreation is only reason humans were endowed with the sexual function; nothing must interfere with the natural conception of life in the sex act; abortion is murder; and homosexuality is disordered.

That is not to say that gays and lesbians should be driven from the Church. No, they deserve our compassion and prayers, but they must not engage in sexual activity for all those reasons stated above. And they surely must never be allowed to marry. Marriage must never be defined as anything other than as between one man and one woman.

Courtesy Steve Sack and Star Tribune

Such dogma and its resistors within the Church, including former priests, existing priests and monks (some of them openly gay), and a significant number of current practitioners of the Catholic faith are pushing back on this archbishop and what appears to be an anti-gay crusade of puzzling dimensions – ask the parishioners at St. Joan of Arc and St. Stephens and others – who argue that none of this homophobia is parallel with Christ’s teachings or embedded in scripture.

This is why TTT’s ANDY DRISCOLL and MICHELLE ALIMORADI are talking about this particular aspect of the Marriage Amendment argument this week and featuring spokespeople from a few walks of Catholic life to explain why they are voting NO on this ballot issue November 6th.

GUESTS:

ROSE MCMURRAY – Mother of a gay son and parishioner at Church of the Risen Savior, Burnsville

ED FLAHAVAN – A Leader of Former Priests Against Marriage Amendment; Archdiocesan priest for 48 years; Head of the Archdiocese’s social-justice agency, the Urban Affairs Commission (UAC); and a member of former Gov. Rudy Perpich’s Task Force on Lesbian and Gay Minnesotans. Married for seven years.

Become a Friend of TruthToTell and let us put you on RADIO! Come to TTT’s 5thAnniversary Bash this Thursday, Sept. 20th., and help keep our weekly shows exploring and examining the issues that matter most – and expand our reach into other corners of the community and Greater Minnesota! We'll record your voice and ideas on mic! DETAILS HERE! PLEASE JOIN US!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We continue our election coverage with the second of the Constitutional amendments facing Minnesota voters in November – the so-called Voter ID amendment – which would memorialize in cement a requirement that all voters present a government issued picture identification card in order to cast a ballot.

Pro-amendment forces, primarily Republicans who pushed this onto this year’s November election ballot – and even many Democrats who see little harm in such a requirement – claim that such a mandate will prevent voter fraud in a state with no substantial record of it.

Anti-voter ID amendmentforces are as adamant about defeating this measure as many have been about the marriage amendment, that it is a costly and disenfranchising move, not just for the usual suspects, but for the fully one-third of Minnesotans who must use Election-Day Registration when voting.

Ultimately, this is about who should get to decide who runs this country, this state, these cities and so on. This is about power – and how you secure it for the future - - like gerrymandering in redistricting – preventing the other party from gaining any kind of foothold or holding a majority or running the government. Voting is just another frontier, is it not, in the acquisition and retention of power and control. The more citizens you can keep from voting, especially those likely to vote for the other guy, you’ll do it, right?

A recent poll (KSTP) indicates both constitutional amendments are likely to pass. Another poll has it closer.

As information trickles into the mainstream media about the effects Voter ID would have on the entire election system in Minnesota – as well as every other state where its appeared – powerful political forces are stepping up and denouncing it as much as those who proposed it in the first.

TTT's ANDY DRISCOLL and MICHELLE ALIMORADI try to sort out the pros and cons of passing or rejecting this proposed amendment to the State Constitution.

TruthToTell is now seen after the show on Blip.tv and at www.TruthToTell.org/Archives.

HELP US BRING YOU THESE IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST – PLEASE DONATE HERE!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Before the main topic got underway, MARCY SHAPIRO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR of OPEN ACCESS CONNECTIONS (formerly Twin City Community Voicemail) joined us in-studio to talk about her organization's loss of funding at the hands of a single office within the Minnesota Department of Human Services. "Today, 350 agencies across the entire state of Minnesota partner with Open Access Connections to allow nearly 5,000 individuals and families each year to have a safe and secure place to receive messages from employers, landlords, children’s schools, doctors, social service providers, family members and friends." No organization in the state and few across the country offer this unique service. OAC needs your help to donate funds, contact legislators to talk with Governor Dayton and the Commissioner of Human Services to reinstate the funding that has forced the layoffs of the all staff members.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We’re living through an era where the notion of the common good has been overwhelmed by the idea of individualism; me and mine. This is manifested on many fronts as you well know. One of the most dramatic is this worship of the Constitution as a charter of limited government. We’re also witnessing the denigration of the public sphere and the selling of privatization as the remedy.

Dane Smith’s recent op-edargues that the Federalists sought ratification of the constitution because they believed that a strong national government was necessary to promote the common welfare. Dane's work with Growth&Justice is predicated on the idea and the historic reality that government can and must play a strong role in achieving the public good.

Doug Rossinow will provide an historical perspective on this fundamental debate in America on contrasting ideas about the meaning of freedom. He teaches courses on the New Deal, Civil Rights and Reagan eras (among other things) — eras where these contrasting ideas (and practices) were in sharp conflict. His most recent book is Vision of Progress: The Left-Liberal Tradition in America

How can people be lured out of their self-imposed isolation – either technological or ideological – and see the value of working together toward the common good? How do you engage people, spurring both action on specific issues and reflection on the underlying values those actions represent? ISAIAH’sDoran Schrantz help answer those questions.

We’re living through an era where the notion of the common good has been overwhelmed by the idea of individualism; me and mine. This is manifested on many fronts as you well know. One of the most dramatic is this worship of the Constitution as a charter of limited government. We’re also witnessing the denigration of the public sphere and the selling of privatization as the remedy.

Dane Smith’s recent op-edargues that the Federalists argued for ratification of the constitution because they believed that a strong national government was necessary to promote the common welfare. His work with Growth&Justice is predicated on the idea and the historic reality that government can and must play a strong role in achieving the public good.

Doug Rossinow will provide an historical perspective on this fundamental debate in America on contrasting ideas about the meaning of freedom. He teaches courses on the New Deal, Civil Rights and Reagan eras (among other things) — eras where these contrasting ideas (and practices) were in sharp conflict. His most recent book is Vision of Progress: The Left-Liberal Tradition in America

How can people be lured out of their self-imposed isolation – either technological or ideological – and see the value of working together toward the common good? How do you engage people, spurring both action on specific issues and reflection on the underlying values those actions represent? ISAIAH’sDoran Schrantz will help answer those questions.

First Person Radio's Laura Waterman Wittstock (with Andy Driscoll) talks about philanthropy in the American Indian community. The foundations represented by our guests have committed their resources to fostering Native self-determination, empowerment, education, leadership and community development. We’ll hear from program officers the role they see for Native philanthropy’s role in driving development and public policy through indigenous cultural values, organizing, and sense of community.

We’re living through an era where the notion of the common good has been overwhelmed by the idea of individualism; me and mine. This is manifested on many fronts. One of the most dramatic is this worship of the Constitution as a charter of limited government. We’re also witnessing the denigration of the public sphere and the selling of privatization as the remedy.

Dane Smith’s recent op-edargues that the Federalists argued for ratification of the constitution because they believed that a strong national government was necessary to promote the common welfare. His work with Growth&Justice is predicated on the idea and the historic reality that government can and must play a strong role in achieving the public good.

Doug Rossinow will provide an historical perspective on this fundamental debate in America on contrasting ideas about the meaning of freedom. He teaches courses on the New Deal, Civil Rights and Reagan eras (among other things) — eras where these contrasting ideas (and practices) were in sharp conflict. His most recent book is Vision of Progress: The Left-Liberal Tradition in America

How can people be lured out of their self-imposed isolation – either technological or ideological – and see the value of working together toward the common good? How do you engage people, spurring both action on specific issues and reflection on the underlying values those actions represent? ISAIAH’sDoran Schrantz will help answer those questions.

Guest Host PROFESSOR TOM O'CONNELL of Metropolitan State University and Board Chair of CivicMedia/Minnesota will ask these questions of his guests:

DANE SMITH– Veteran journalist and Executive Director of Growth & Justice, a progressive think tank dedicated to making Minnesota more prosperous and fair.

They made us many promises, more than I can remember. But they kept but one - They promised to take our land...and they took it. -- Chief Red Cloud

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Laura Waterman Wittstock and Richard LaFortune with Andy Driscoll tomorrow on First Person Radio as we talk with Dr. Chris Mato Nunpa on Dakota treaty issues and the stipulations of the Treaty of 1805 which confirms the "Sioux Nation" rights to hunt and fish in what is now Minneapolis and other parts covered by the treaty language. Dr. Mato Nunpa is an expert on the treaty and he was recently stopped from fishing at Cedar Lake in Minneapolis. The treaty says in part:

ARTICLE 3. The United States promise on their part to permit the Sioux to pass, repass, hunt or make other uses of the said districts, as they have formerly done, without any other exception, but those specified in article first. (note: which was the creation of Ft. Snelling by Zebulon Pike, the white/US Treaty signatory).

Jim Anderson is the recently elected Chairman of Minnesota’s Mendota Mdewakanton Dakota Community. Anderson is a longtime Dakota activist, fluid in his storytelling and challenging to those who would flout the treaties he insists protect Indian rights to land uses others would deny his people. Back in February, Anderson and his family, usurped for a home a Mendota building that had served as a community center until the land’s owners – the owners of Axel’s Bonfire restaurants – decided to tear the building down for parking. Anderson was protesting the US government’s failure to recognize his tribe. His other protests have included re-asserting Indian rights to the sacred Coldwater site further north off Highway 55.

Together, Anderson and Mato Nunpa are taking their message of Dakota genocide and treaty violations to audiences and readers across the US.

Before the main topic got underway, MARCY SHAPIRO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR of OPEN ACCESS CONNECTIONS (formerly Twin City Community Voicemail) joined us in-studio to talk about her organization's loss of funding at the hands of a single office within the Minnesota Department of Human Services. "Today, 350 agencies across the entire state of Minnesota partner with Open Access Connections to allow nearly 5,000 individuals and families each year to have a safe and secure place to receive messages from employers, landlords, children’s schools, doctors, social service providers, family members and friends." No organization in the state and few across the country offer this unique service. OAC needs your help to donate funds, contact legislators to talk with Governor Dayton and the Commissioner of Human Services to reinstate the funding that has forced the layoffs of the all staff members.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TruthToTell is now seen after the show on Blip.tv and our own archives.

HELP US BRING YOU THESE IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST – PLEASE DONATE HERE!

We’re living through an era where the notion of the common good has been overwhelmed by the idea of individualism; me and mine. This is manifested on many fronts as you well know. One of the most dramatic is this worship of the Constitution as a charter of limited government. We’re also witnessing the denigration of the public sphere and the selling of privatization as the remedy.

Dane Smith’s recent op-edargues that the Federalists sought ratification of the constitution because they believed that a strong national government was necessary to promote the common welfare. Dane's work with Growth&Justice is predicated on the idea and the historic reality that government can and must play a strong role in achieving the public good.

Doug Rossinow will provide an historical perspective on this fundamental debate in America on contrasting ideas about the meaning of freedom. He teaches courses on the New Deal, Civil Rights and Reagan eras (among other things) — eras where these contrasting ideas (and practices) were in sharp conflict. His most recent book is Vision of Progress: The Left-Liberal Tradition in America

How can people be lured out of their self-imposed isolation – either technological or ideological – and see the value of working together toward the common good? How do you engage people, spurring both action on specific issues and reflection on the underlying values those actions represent? ISAIAH’sDoran Schrantz help answer those questions.